Washington Post: “A Romney presidency would be illegitimate”

Why? Because some states require voters to provide legitimate identification that shows that “hey, I’m me!” It’s not like we need ID for practically everything. It’s not like Democrats have called for even more draconian registration and identification to purchase a handgun. Do you want to purchase certain cold medicines? More than likely, you will have to show ID and fill out some forms in order to purchase that over-the-counter cold medicine. And voting for president is a privilege, not a right, much like driving a car. But, Democrats really, really do not like having to prove that dead people, pets, and illegal aliens are eligible to vote, so, we finally have the first outcry that a Romney presidency would be illegitimate, per Harold Meyerson a the Washington Post: What happens if GOP’s voter suppression works?

Suppose Mitt Romney ekes out a victory in November by a margin smaller than the number of young and minority voters who couldn’t cast ballots because the photo-identification laws enacted by Republican governors and legislators kept them from the polls. What should Democrats do then? What would Republicans do? And how would other nations respond?

I have to wonder: are Democrat voters too stupid and/or poor that they cannot obtain a legitimate state issued ID? Hell, perhaps there should be a test for registered Democrats to see if they actually understand the issues and policies of the people they plan on voting for before being given an ID. Meyerson provides some data on how many voters are without ID, such as in Pennsylvania, where 9.2% are without. He provides a big whine party, but, perhaps they are without because they are dead, pets, illegal aliens, or just entirely too stupid for modern society, which is why they vote Democrat.

If voter suppression goes forward and Romney narrowly prevails, consider the consequences. An overwhelmingly and increasingly white Republican Party, based in the South, will owe its power to discrimination against black and Latino voters, much like the old segregationist Dixiecrats.

Dixiecrats were Democrats. Furthermore, I find it interesting that some many white Democrats (and true Socialists) think that Blacks and Latinos are incapable of obtaining ID. It’s almost like these white Democrats think they’re stupid. Of course, the raaaaacism meme provided if Romney wins is amusing.

It’s also not a cycle calculated to endear America to the rest of the world. The United States abolished electoral apartheid in the 1960s for reasons that were largely moral but were also geopolitical.

There we go: requiring ID to vote is “apartheid”.

And what should Democrats do if Romney comes to power on the strength of racially suppressed votes? Such an outcome and such a presidency, I’d hope they contend, would be illegitimate – a betrayal of our laws and traditions, of our very essence as a democratic republic. Mass demonstrations would be in order. So would a congressional refusal to confirm any of Romney’s appointments. A presidency premised on a racist restriction of the franchise creates a political and constitutional crisis, and responding to it with resigned acceptance or inaction would negate America’s hard-won commitment to democracy and equality.

See? Obama won’t be losing because he’s a SCOAMF, because his economic policies have been a disaster, because unemployment is so high and so many people have given up on the jobs market in despair: he’ll lose because the raaaaacists in the GOP have dared to require that people prove they are who they say when voting. Who’s up for another round of “the election was stolen!!!!!!”? It was amusing watching Democrats go stark raving barking moonbat post 2000 election.